International Journal of Agricultural

Science and Research (IJASR)

ISSN (P): 2250-0057; ISSN (E): 2321-0087
Vol. 7, Issue 5, Oct 2017, 395-406
© TJPRC Pvt. Ltd.

QUALITY AND SHELF LIFE OF GANESH POMEGRANATE ARILS AS AFFECTED

BY DIFFERENT PACKAGING MATERIAL AND STORAGE CONDITIONS

K VENKATARAMUDU1, B SRINIVASULU2, K SWARAJYA LAKSHMI3,

K SUBRAMANYAM4 & P LATHA5
1
Assistant professor (Horticulture) at Srikrishnadevaraya College of Horticultural sciences, Ananthapuramu,
Dr. Y.S.R.H.U, Venkataramannagudem, West Godavari, Andhra Pradesh, India
2
Senior Scientist (Horticulture) Horticulture Research Station, Ananthapuramu, Dr. Y.S.R.H.U, Venkataramannagudem
West Godavari, Andhra Pradesh, India
3
Associate Professor (Horticulture) College of Horticulture, Anantharajupeta, Dr. Y.S.R.H.U, Venkataramannagudem,
West Godavari, Andhra Pradesh, India
4
Principal Scientist (Plant pathology) Horticulture Research Station, Mahanandi, Dr. Y.S.R.H.U, Venkataramannagudem,
West Godavari, Andhra Pradesh, India
5
Scientist (Plant pathology) Regional Agricultural Research Station, Tirupathi, ANGRAU, LAM Farm, Guntur,
Andhra Pradesh, India
ABSTRACT

Original Article
Different packaging material was used for packaging pomegranate arils and was evaluated for shelf life and
quality parameters at different storage temperatures. Arils packed in PPMM (P3) recorded with high anthocyanin
content (24.03 mg 100g-1) and β-carotene content (18.26 µg 100g-1) and high organoleptic score for colour (6.17), taste
(6.00), flavour (6.25) and overall acceptability (6.08) with less microbial count (2.33 ×108CFU/ml) was observed. With
respect to storage temperatures, arils stored at 1°C (S1) recorded with high anthocyanin content (24.56 mg 100g-1) and
β-carotene content (21.91 µg 100g-1) and high organoleptic score for colour (7.44), taste (7.89), flavour (7.22) and
overall acceptability (6.78) with lowest microbial count (1.44 ×108CFU/ml). The interaction effect of packing material
and storage temperatures, revealed that high anthocyanin content (25.05 mg 100g-1) and β-carotene content (23.23 µg
100g-1) and the highest organoleptic score for aril colour (8.00), taste (8.33), flavour (7.33) and overall acceptability
(7.33) with lowest microbial count (1.00 ×108CFU/ml) were recorded in the PPMM + 1°C (P3S1).

KEYWORDS: Arils, Packaging Material & Storage Temperatures

Received: Aug 26, 2017; Accepted: Sep 15, 2017; Published: Sep 28, 2017; Paper Id.: IJASROCT201747

INTRODUCTION

In India, only about 2 percent of the fruits and vegetables are processed into value added products.
Pomegranate being rich in nutritive and therapeutic values, provides vast opportunity for its economic utilization
like fresh juice, aril packs (dried and fresh), jelly, tea, wine and seed oil through processing and non-food usage of
dyes, inks, essences and chemicals for tannin industry. Pomegranate (Punica granatum L.) is an ancient plant,
belonging to the family Lythraceae. Pomegranate fruit and its juice are well known for its antioxidant capacity and
hence becoming popular, to prevent cancers of different tissues and organs. This has led farmers to diversify their
cropping system with pomegranate cultivation, for domestic consumption and export. Because, of its adaptability

www.tjprc.org [email protected]
396 K Venkataramudu, B Srinivasulu, K Swarajya Lakshmi, K Subramanyam & P Latha

to varied climatic and soil conditions, it is well suited to grow in tropical and sub-tropical regions of the country. Globally,
at present, India is one of the leading countries in pomegranate acreage (3.0 lakh ha) and production of 2.5 million tonnes
(Patil et al. 2014) and the crop is commercially grown in the states of Maharashtra, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat
and Tamil Nadu, and to some extent in some other states of the country also. The edible portion is an excellent dietary
source, contains a significant proportion of phenolic compounds, antioxidants, anthocyanis, organic acids, soluble solids,
polysaccharides, vitamins, fatty acids and mineral elements of nutritional significance (Fadavi et al. 2006). In spite of these
numerous health benefits, pomegranate consumption is still limited, due to the difficulties of removing of arils from the
fruit and the irritation of phenolic metabolites, which stain the hands during preparation of seeds (Gil et al., 1996b).
Minimally, processing of pomegranate into arils can bring about the convenience, for food services and consumers (Ersan
et al., 2010). Eventhough, minimal processing of this fruit may bring convenience, its quality may be reduced, as a result
of an increase in respiration rate.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The experiment was conducted at Post-Harvest Technology Laboratory, College of Horticulture (COH),
Anantharajupet, YSR Kadapa district, Andhra Pradesh, during the year, 2015. The fruits of pomegranate varieties, namely,
Bhagwa used in the experiment were obtained from AICRP centre on Arid Zone fruits, Horticultural Research Station,
Rekulakunta, Ananthapuramu district, Andhra Pradesh. The experiment was conducted in a completely randomized design,
replicated thrice with 3 packaging materials viz., PESP (P1), PETP (P2) and PPMM (P3) and storage temperatures S1 (1°C),
S2 (4°C), S3 (8°C) and S4 (room temperature).

Anthocyanin

The procedure outlined by Harborne (1973) was used for analyzing anthocyanin content (mg 100g-1), in
pomegranate arils. One gram of pomegranate arils was macerated in one ml of methanol, containing one percent
hydrochloric acid. The content was kept overnight at a 0°C temperature in a deep freezer. The absorbance of the red
colored solution was recorded at 530 nm, on a spectrophotometer. Anthocyanin content was expressed as absorption units
at 530 nm per gram of fresh arils.

β-Carotene

The ß - carotene content of pomegranate arils was estimated by using the methodology of Srivastava and Kumar
(2003). β-carotene was extracted from the sample, by crushing one gram of sample with 10 ml acetone and adding crystals
of anhydrous sodium sulphate. The supernatant was decanted and collected in a beaker. The process was repeated twice.
Ten ml of petroleum ether was added and mixed thoroughly. The content was transferred into a separating funnel and two
layers were separated out, on standing solution. Lower layer was discarded and upper layer was collected, and volume was
made upto20 ml with petroleum ether. The optical density was recorded at 452 nm, using petroleum ether as blank.

Moulds and Yeasts

For microbial count estimation, 28g of Nutrient Agar (NA) was suspended in a 1000 ml of distilled water in one
beaker, and 39g of Potato Dextrose Agar (PDA) in 1000 ml of distilled water in another beaker, and both of them heated to
boiling, in order to dissolve the medium completely. After that, sterilization was done by autoclaving at 15 lbs pressure
(121°C), for 15 minutes. Mixed media were poured in Petri-plates, in the laminar air flow chamber. The test tubes in the

Impact Factor (JCC): 5.9857 NAAS Rating: 4.13

Quality and Shelf Life of Ganesh Pomegranate Arils as Affected by 397
Different Packaging Material and Storage Conditions

test tube stand were added, with 9 ml distilled water in each test tube. After that, the test tubes were sterilized at 15 psi and
121°C in autoclave. One gram of aril juice was added in one test tube and labeled as 10. From this test tube, 1 ml of sample
was taken to another test tube, and labeled as 10-1. This step is repeated up to 10-3. 100 micro litre samples were taken and
added aseptically with the help of micro pipette, in three different NA and PDA plates, and spread with the help of a
spreader. These plates were kept in BOD incubator (PDA plates at 30°C and NA plates at 25°C) for incubation. Count for
CFU was done after 48 hours.

SENSORY EVALUATION

The stored arils of pomegranate were examined for their sensory qualities, by assessing the colour, flavour,
texture and overall acceptability. Sensory evaluation was carried out by a panel of 5 judges, and the rating was done with a
score of 9 points Hedonic scale, as proposed by Amerine et al. 1965.

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

The data collected were analyzed statistically using factorial completely randomized design, as per the procedure
outlined by Panse and Sukhatme (1985), and valid conclusions were drawn, only on significant differences between
treatments mean at 0.05 percent, level of significance.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

Anthocyanin Content (mg 100g-1)

There were significant differences in anthocyanin (mg 100g-1) content of arils,packed with different packing
material and stored at different storage temperatures (Table 1). Among packing materials, arils packed in PPMM (P3)
recorded the highest anthocyanin content (mg 100g-1) (26.14, 25.65, 25.00and 24.03) while, arils packed in PETP (P2)
recorded the lowest anthocyanin (mg 100g-1) content (25.45, 24.53, 23.91and 23.12). The data recorded on anthocyanin
content (mg 100g-1), revealed higher values in arils stored at 1°C (S1) (26.58, 26.32, 25.62 and 24.56) and lower values in
arils stored at room temperature (S4) (24.01, 23.31, 22.84 and 22.61). These results are in agreement with the findings of
Artes et al. (2000) and Ayhan and Esturk (2009), in pomegranate cv. Hicaznar. The interaction between packing material
and storage temperatures had a significant effect on anthocyanin content (mg 100g-1) of arils. Significantly, the highest
anthocyanin (mg 100g-1) content was recorded in PPMM + 1°C (P3S1) (26.78, 26.61 and 26.04), and lowest anthocyanin
content (mg 100g-1) in PETP + room temperature (P2S4) (23.32, 22.88 and 22.54), on 4th, 8th and the 12th day of storage.
No significant difference was found on the interaction effect of packing material and storage temperature, with respect to
anthocyanin content in arils on 16th day of storage. A general trend of decrease in the total anthocyanin content of arils was
observed, as the storage period advanced for all treatments. The decrease in anthocyanin content during storage might be
due to oxidative activity of Polyphenol Oxidase (Vamos-Vigyazo, 1981).

β-Carotene Content (µg 100g-1)

It is observed from the data presented in Table 2 that, there was a significant influence of packing material and
storage temperatures on β-carotene content (µg 100g-1) of arils. The arils packed in P3 (PPMM) recorded significantly
highest β-carotene content (µg 100g-1) (23.77, 21.16, 20.30 and18.26 in Ganesh) whereas, PETP (P2) recorded the lowest
beta-carotene content (µg 100g-1) 22.45, 19.89, 18.17 and 16.79, during the storage period. Maximum β-carotene content
(µg 100g-1) was observed in arils, stored at 1°C (S1) (28.50, 26.05, 24.20 and 21.91) while, minimum β-carotene content

www.tjprc.org [email protected]
398 K Venkataramudu, B Srinivasulu, K Swarajya Lakshmi, K Subramanyam & P Latha

(µg 100g-1) was observed in arils stored at room temperature (S4) (17.58, 16.12, 14.63 and 13.69). The significant
interaction effect of packing material and storage temperature on β-carotene content (µg 100g-1) of arils, was observed on
4th and 16th day of storage. The highest β-carotene content (µg 100g-1) was noticed in PPMM+1°C (P3S1) (29.41 and 23.23)
and lowest in PETP + room temperature (P2S4) (16.15 and 13.41). There were no significant differences observed on the 8th
and the 12th day of storage, in arils. There was a reduction in β-carotene content of arils, irrespective of packing, storage
temperature and interaction effect, throughout the storage period, as also reported by Pilon (2006) in Carrot and Green
pepper. This may be due to high solubility of β-carotene content in water, that favour large pigment loss, due to exposure
of arils surface to water, that is stored during the physiological process like respiration.

Moulds and Yeast (×108CFU/ml)

The data presented in Table 3, showed significant influence of packing material and storage temperatures, on the
growth of moulds and yeast on arils. The lowest microbial load (×108CFU/ml) was observed in arils, packed in PPMM (P3)
(0.17, 0.58, 1.25 and 2.33) while, highest microbial load (×108CFU/ml) was recorded in arils packed in PETP (P2) (0.83,
1.92, 2.67 and 3.58). With regard to arils stored at different temperatures, no visual detection of mould growth was seen at
S1 (1°C), S2 (4°C) and S3 (8°C) whereas, maximum microbial growth was observed at room temperature (S4) (1.78) on 4th
day of storage. On the 8th day of storage, there was no visual mould growth seen at S1 (1°C) while, minimum microbial
count (×108CFU/ml) was observed on 8°C (S3) (0.33) and maximum count (×108CFU/ml) in room temperature (S4) (3.00).
The lowest microbial load (×108CFU/ml) was observed at 1°C (S1) (0.67 and 1.44) and highest microbial load
(×108CFU/ml) was observed at room temperature (S4) (4.11 and 5.11) during the 12th and 16th day of storage. The
importance of storage temperature during storage of arils have been emphasized by many researchers who reported low
temperatures (0-5°C) at modified atmosphere conditions was effective to reduce respiration rate, enzymatic processes and
microbial activity (Gil et al. 1996 b, Kader, 2002 and Nicola et al. 2009). Significant differences were observed in the
interaction effect between packing material and storage temperatures on microbial load (×108CFU/ml) of arils. On 4thday
of storage, there was no visual mould growth in P1S1, P2S1, P3S1, P1S2, P2S2, P3S2, P1S3, P2S3 and P3S3 whereas, maximum
microbial load (×108CFU/ml) was observed in P2S4 (3.33). On the 8th day of storage, there was no visual mould growth in
P1S1, P2S1, P3S1, P1S2 and P3S2 while, maximum microbial count (×108CFU/ml) was observed in P2S4 (4.33). On 12th day,
significant difference was observed in the interaction effect on microbial count (×108CFU/ml) of arils. Minimum microbial
count (×108CFU/ml) was observed in PPMM + 1°C (P3S1) (0.33) and maximum in PETP and room temperature (P2S4)
(4.67). On the 16th day, there was no significant difference was observed in the interaction effect of Eris. Gil et al. (1996),
Kader (2002) and Nicola et al. (2009) reported that no visual detection of mould growth was seen in ‘Arakta’ and
‘Bhagwa’ arils stored at 1°C after 14 days. Higher storage temperature affected the proximate composition, physico-
chemical attributes and bioactive components negatively. This study agrees with other researchers and advises
pomegranate producers and retailers that the cold chain should be maintained at low (0-5°C) storage temperature and 95%
RH for optimal quality of minimally processed arils of pomegranate. Soliva and Martin Belloso (2003) and Caleb et al.
(2013) reported that, the physico-chemical properties of pomegranate arils such as titratable acidity and cultivar have an
important effect on microbial growth and shelf life of fresh cut arils. Gill et al. (1996) used the lowest respiration rate as
one of the measures to recommend 1°C and Modular Mate pack for best quality preservation of pomegranate arils. Storage
of arils under optimal MA has been shown to reduce the risk of enterobacteria and lactic acid bacteria, as well as moulds
and yeast counts (Sepulveda et al. 2000 and Lopez-Rubira et al. 2005 in pomegranate). Furthermore, since the
pomegranate arils store at lower temperature, the risk of microbial proliferation was reduced. According to Artes et al.

Impact Factor (JCC): 5.9857 NAAS Rating: 4.13

Quality and Shelf Life of Ganesh Pomegranate Arils as Affected by 399
Different Packaging Material and Storage Conditions

(2000a, b), higher levels of decay were mainly due to Penicillium spp. Similarly, Lopez-Rubira et al. (2005) observed a
low count of micro-aerophilic lactic acid bacteria after 10 days of aril storage, without any trace of fermentative
metabolism.

ORGANOLEPTIC EVALUATION (9 POINT HEDONIC SCALE)

Colour

There was a significant effect of packing material and storage temperatures on the sensory qualities of arils during
the entire storage period (Table 4). Significantly, the highest colour score was recorded in arils, packed in PPMM (P3)
(7.58, 7.50, 6.83 and 6.17) and the lowest colour score was recorded in arils packed in PETP (P2) (6.92, 6.58, 6.17 and
5.50), during the storage period of 16 days. In case of storage temperatures, maximum colour score was recorded in arils
stored at 1°C (S1) (8.44, 8.22, 7.67 and 7.44) and the minimum colour score was recorded in arils stored at room
temperature (S4) (4.78, 4.44, 3.89 and 2.78). Similar observation to this finding was also reported by Nanda et al. (2001) in
pomegranate, when fruits were packed in shrink film.

Taste

The taste of arils differed significantly with respect to packing material and storage temperatures (Table 5). The
maximum rating for aril taste was observed in PPMM (P3) (6.42, 6.33, 6.08 and 6.00) and minimum in PETP (P2) (5.92,
5.83, 5.58 and 5.50) during the storage period of sixteen days. The highest score for aril taste was recorded at 1°C (S1)
(8.67, 8.44, 8.22 and 7.89) whereas, lowest score for aril taste was recorded at room temperature (S3) (7.89, 7.33, 7.33 and
7.33). There were no significant differences observed on the interaction effects of sensory attributes of arils packed with
different packing material and storage temperatures throughout the storage period of sixteen days. During the storage
period, there was a decreasing trend in organoleptic score for taste of arils was due to fluctuations in acids, pH and
sugar/acid ratio as reported by Malundo et al. (1991) in mango.

Flavour

Flavour of the arils packed with different packing materials and stored at different storage temperatures was found
to be significant (Table 6). The minimum off flavor score was observed in PPMM (P3) (7.42, 7.25, 6.75 and 6.25) whereas,
maximum off flavor score was observed in PETP (P2) (6.67, 6.42, 6.17 and 5.75) packed arils. Concerned to different
temperatures, the lowest off flavor score was observed at 1°C (S1) (8.11, 8.11, 7.56 and 7.22) while, highest off flavor
score was observed at room temperature (S4) (4.78, 4.11, 3.44 and 3.22). There were no significant differences observed on
the interaction effects of sensory attributes of arils packed with different packing material and storage temperatures
throughout the storage period of sixteen days. The maximum score for good flavor of arils appeared to be due to reduced
rate of respiration and moisture loss from the arils and also less microbial contamination in the packing materials reported
by Nanda et al. (2001) in pomegranate.

Overall Acceptability

It is evident from the data presented in Table 7 that the overall acceptability of arils varied significantly and the
results were found significant. The highest overall acceptability of arils was recorded in PPMM (P3) (7.58, 6.92, 6.75 and
6.08) and lowest overall acceptability of arils was recorded in PETP (P2) (6.58, 6.00, 5.92 and 5.33) during the storage
period. With respect to storage temperatures, the maximum overall acceptability score of arils was recorded at 1°C (S1)
(8.44, 7.78, 7.33 and 6.78) and minimum overall acceptability score was observed at room temperature (S4) (4.00, 3.44,

www.tjprc.org [email protected]
400 K Venkataramudu, B Srinivasulu, K Swarajya Lakshmi, K Subramanyam & P Latha

3.44 and 3.33). The better organoleptic score for arils stored packed in PPMM at lower temperatures could be attributed to
the maximum retention of chemical constituents in proper proportions. Similar observations were reported by Nanda et al.
(2001) in pomegranate and Rathod et al. (2011) in carambola fruits. The interaction effect of packing material and storage
temperatures on the sensory attributes of arils was non-significant, throughout the storage period. Maintaining the
nutritional and organoleptic quality of pomegranate arils is a major challenge, because extracted arils deteriorate in colour,
taste, flavor and overall acceptability and a reduction in shelf-life (Gil et al. 1996b). This is due to active metabolic
processes by endogenous enzymatic activity and enhanced respiration rate as opined by Rolle and Chism (1987) in fruits
and vegetables, and Ergun (2009) in Pomegranate.

CONCLUSIONS

Among different packaging materials and storage temperatures used in the study, the PPMM and 1°C was
adjudged best, for maintaining nutritional quality and shelf life of arils of pomegranate cv. Ganesh, upto 16 days during
storage.

REFERENCES

1. Amerine, M.A, Pangborn, R.M. and Rossler, B.B. 1965. Principles of sensory evaluation of food. Academic press, London.

2. Artes, F, Tudela, J.A. and Villaescusa, R. 2000a.Thermal postharvest treatment for improvingpomegranate quality and shelf
life.Postharvest Biology and Technology. 18: 245-251.

3. Artes, F, Villaescusa, R. and Tudela, J.A. 2000. Modified atmosphere packaging of Pomegranate. Journal of Food Science.
65(7): 1112-1116.

4. Artes, F., Gines Marin, J. & Martinez, J.A. 1996. Controlled atmosphere packaging of pomegranate. Zeitschrift fuer
Lebensmittel-Untersuchung und -Forschung, 203: 33-37.

5. Ayhan, Z. & Esturk, O. 2009. Overall quality and shelf life of minimally processed and modified atmosphere packaged
‘’ready-to-eat’’ pomegranate arils. Journal of Food Science, 74 (5): 399-405.

6. Caleb, O. J., Opara, U. L., & Witthuhn, C. R. 2012. Modified atmosphere packaging of pomegranate fruit and arils: A review.
Food and Bioprocess Technology, 5: 15–30.

7. Caleb, O. J., Opara, U. L., Mahajan, P. V., Manley, M., Mokwena, L., & Tredoux, A. G. J. (2013). Effect of modified
atmosphere packaging and storage temperature on volatile composition and postharvest life of minimally-processed
pomegranate arils (cvs. Acco and Herskawitz). Postharvest Biology and Technology, 79, 54-61.

8. Ergun, M., & Ergun, N. (2009). Maintaining quality of minimally processed pomegranate arils by honey treatments. British
Food Journal, 111(4), 396–406.

9. Ersan, S., Gunes, G. & Zor, A. O. 2010. Respiration rate of pomegranate arils as affected by O2 and CO2, and design of
modified atmosphere packaging. Acta Horticulturae, 876: 189-196.

10. Fadavi, A., Barzegar M. & Azizi, M.H. (2006). Determination of fatty acids and total lipid content in oilseed of 25
pomegranate varieties grown in Iran. Journal of Food Composition Analysis, 19, 676-680.

11. Gil, M, Martinez, J. and Artes, F. 1996b. Minimally processed pomegranate seeds. Lebensm Wissu-Technolology. 29:708–13.

12. Gil, M. I., Martinez, J. A., & Artes, F. (1996b). Minimally processed pomegranate seeds. Lebensm Wiss U Technol, 29, 708–
713. Gontard, N. (2000). Panorama des emballages alimentaires actifs. In N. Gontard (Ed.), Les emballages actifs (pp. 1–29).

Impact Factor (JCC): 5.9857 NAAS Rating: 4.13

Quality and Shelf Life of Ganesh Pomegranate Arils as Affected by 401
Different Packaging Material and Storage Conditions

Paris: Tec & Doc.

13. Gil, M. I., Martinez, J. A., & Artes, F. 1996. Minimally processed pomegranate seeds. Lebensmittel-Wissenschaft und-
Technologie, 29: 708–713.

14. Gil, M.I., Artes, F., & Tomas-Barberan, F.A. (1996). Minimal processing and modified atmosphere packaging effects on
pigmentation of pomegranate seeds. Journal of Food Science, 61, 1, 161–164.

15. Harborne, J.B. 1973. Phytochemical methods. Chapman and Haul International Education Toppan Company Limited. Tokyo,
Japan.

16. Kader, A. A. (2002). Postharvest biology and technology: an overview. In A. A. Kader (Ed.), Postharvest technology of
horticultural crops (pp. 39-48). Davis, California, USA: University of California.

17. Lopez-Rubira, V, Conesa, A, Allende, A. andArtes, F. 2005. Shelf life and overall quality of minimally processed pomegranate
arils modified atmosphere packaged and treated with UV-C. Postharvest Biology and Technology. 37:174–85.

18. Malundo, T.M.M, Baldwin, E.A, Moshonas, M.G, Baker, R.A. and Shewfelt, R.L. 1997. Method for the rapid head space
analysis of mango (Mangiferaindica L.) homogenate volatile constituents and factors affecting quantitative results. Journal of
Agricultural Food Chemistry. 45(6): 2187-2194.

19. Nanda, S. Rao, D.V.S. and Shantha-Krishnamurthy. 2001. Effects of shrink film wrapping and storage temperature on the shelf
life and quality of pomegranate fruits cv. Ganesh. Post harvest Biology and Technology. 22(1): 61-69.

20. Nicola, S, Tibaldi, G. and Fontana, E. 2009. Fresh-cut produce quality: Implications for a systems approach. In: Postharvest
Handling: A Systems Approach. (Edited by Florkowski, W.J, Shewfelt, R. L, Brueckner, B. and Prussia, S.E.). 270-273.

21. Panse, V.G. and Sukhatme, P.V. 1985. Statistical methods of agricultural workers. Indian Council of Agricultural Research,
New Delhi.

22. Patil, C.B, Koujalagi, B.L. and Murthy, C. 2014. Growth trends in area, production, productivity and export of pomegranate
in Karnataka: An economic analysis. International Journal of Commerce and Business Management. 7(1): 11-15.

23. Pilon, L, Marilia Oetterer, M, Claudio, R, Marta, H.F. 2006. Shelf life of minimally processed carrot and green pepper. 26(1):
150-158.

24. Rathod, A, Shoba, H. and Chidanand, D.V. 2011. A study on shelf life extension of carambola fruits. International Journal of
Scientific and Engineering Research 2(9): 1-5.

25. Rolle, R.S. and Chism, G.W. 1987. Physiological consequences of minimally processed fruits and vegetables. Journal of Food
Quality. 10:157-77

26. Sepulveda, E, Galletti, l, Saenz, C. and Tapia, M. 2000. Minimal processing of pomegranate Wonderful variety. Symposium on
production, processing and marketing of pomegranate in the Mediterranean region: Advances in Research and Technology.
237-242.

27. Soliva, F.R.C.and Martin, B.O. 2003. New advances in extending shelf-life of fresh-cut fruits: a review. Trends in Food
Science and Technology. 14:341-353.

28. Srivastava, R.P. and Kumar, S. 2002. Fruit and Vegetable preservation. Principles and Practices. 3rd edition revised and
enlarged edition.

29. Vamos-Vigyazo, L. 1981. Polyphenol oxidase and peroxidase in fruits and vegetables. Critical Reviews in Food Science and
Nutrition. 9: 49–127.

www.tjprc.org [email protected]
APPENDICES

Table 1: Anthocyanin Content (mg 100g-1) of Arils of Pomegranate cv. Ganesh as

Influenced by different Packing Material and Storage Temperatures
Anthocyanin Content (mg 100g-1)
Storage Period (days)
0 4 8 12 16
Me Me Me Me
P1 P2 P3 P1 P2 P3 P1 P2 P3 P1 P2 P3
an an an an
25
27. 26. 26. 26. 26. 26. 25. 26. 26. 25. 25. 26. 25. 24. 23. 24.
S1 .0
49 61 34 78 58 51 83 61 32 73 08 04 62 75 90 56
5
24
27. 26. 26. 26. 26. 26. 25. 26. 25. 25. 24. 25. 25. 24. 23. 23.
S2 .3
49 48 31 68 49 24 29 34 96 53 47 76 25 00 49 94
4
23
27. 26. 25. 26. 25. 25. 24. 25. 25. 24. 23. 24. 24. 23. 22. 23.
S3 .7
49 00 83 14 99 56 13 73 14 68 56 98 41 52 88 40
9
22
27. 23. 23. 24. 24. 23. 22. 23. 23. 22. 22. 23. 22. 22. 22. 22.
S4 .9
49 76 32 95 01 12 88 93 31 78 54 22 84 64 23 61
5
24
Me 27. 25. 25. 26. 25. 24. 25. 24. 23. 25. 23. 23.
.0
an 49 71 45 14 36 53 65 68 91 00 73 12
3
CD@P=0. CD@P=0. CD@P=0. CD@P=
Statistics S. Em± S. Em± S. Em± S. Em±
05 05 05 0.05
P 0.070 0.205 0.050 0.146 0.045 0.132 0.091 0.265
S 0.081 0.236 0.058 0.168 0.052 0.152 0.105 0.306
P×S 0.140 0.410 0.100 0.292 0.090 0.264 0.182 NS

Table 2: Effect of Different Packing Material and Storage Temperatures on

β- Carotene Content (µg 100 g-1) of Arils of Pomegranate cv. Ganesh
β-carotene Content (µg 100 g-1)
Storage Period (days)
0 4 8 12 16
Me Me Me Me
P1 P2 P3 P1 P2 P3 P1 P2 P3 P1 P2 P3
an an an an
30. 27. 28. 29. 28. 26. 25. 26. 26. 23. 22. 27. 24. 22. 20. 23. 21.
S1
75 74 35 41 50 19 66 29 05 24 00 34 20 08 43 23 91
30. 23. 23. 23. 23. 20. 19. 21. 20. 19. 18. 19. 19. 18. 16. 18. 17.
S2
75 55 51 98 68 78 02 10 30 15 90 20 08 08 80 40 76
30. 22. 21. 22. 22. 19. 19. 20. 19. 18. 17. 18. 18. 16. 16. 17. 16.
S3
75 01 78 40 06 77 26 58 87 75 89 86 50 52 51 19 74
30. 17. 16. 19. 17. 16. 15. 16. 16. 14. 13. 15. 14. 13. 13. 14. 13.
S4
75 33 15 28 58 05 62 68 12 23 89 78 63 44 41 21 69
Me 30. 22. 22. 23. 20. 19. 21. 18. 18. 20. 17. 16. 18.
an 75 66 45 77 70 89 16 84 17 30 53 79 26
CD@P=0. CD@P=0. CD@P=0. CD@P=0.
Statistics S. Em± S. Em± S. Em± S. Em±
05 05 05 05
P 0.20 0.57 0.32 0.93 0.47 1.36 0.16 0.45
S 0.23 0.66 0.37 1.08 0.54 1.58 0.18 0.52
P×S 0.39 1.15 0.64 NS 0.94 NS 0.31 0.91

www.tjprc.org [email protected]
Quality and Shelf Life of Ganesh Pomegranate Arils as Affected by 403
Different Packaging Material and Storage Conditions

Table 3: Effect of Different Packing Material and Storage Temperatures on

Microbial Count (×108CFU/ml) of Arils of Pomegranate cv. Ganesh
Microbial Count (×108CFU/ml)
Storage Period (days)
0 4 8 12 16
Mea Mea Mea Mea
P1 P2 P3 P1 P2 P3 P1 P2 P3 P1 P2 P3
n n n n
0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 1.0 0.3 1.3 2.0 1.0
S1 0.00 0.00 0.67 1.44
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 3 3 0 0
0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.3 0.6 1.6 2.3 1.3
S2 0.00 0.33 1.00 1.78
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 7 7 3 3
0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 2.3 0.6 2.0 3.6 0.6 3.3 4.3 2.0
S3 0.00 1.33 2.11 3.22
0 0 0 0 0 3 7 0 7 7 3 3 0
0. 1.3 3.3 0.6 3.0 4.3 1.6 4.3 4.6 3.3 4.6 5.6 5.0
S4 1.78 3.00 4.11 5.11
0 3 3 7 0 3 7 3 7 3 7 7 0
Mea 0. 0.3 0.8 0.1 1.0 1.9 0.5 2.0 2.6 1.2 2.7 3.5 2.3
n 0 3 3 7 0 2 8 0 7 5 5 8 3
CD@P=0. CD@P=0. CD@P=0. CD@P=0.
Statistics S. Em± S. Em± S. Em± S. Em±
05 05 05 05
P 0.08 0.24 0.13 0.37 0.14 0.42 0.18 0.53
S 0.10 0.28 0.15 0.43 0.17 0.49 0.21 0.61
P×S 0.17 0.49 0.25 0.74 0.29 0.84 0.36 NS

Tables 4: Aril Colour of Pomegranate Cv. Ganesh as Influenced By

Different Packing Material and Storage Temperatures
Aril Colour (organoleptic score)
Storage period (days)
0 4 8 12 16
Mea Mea Mea Mea
P1 P2 P3 P1 P2 P3 P1 P2 P3 P1 P2 P3
n n n n
9.0 8.6 8.0 8.6 8.3 7.6 8.6 7.6 7.3 8.0 7.3 7.0 8.0
S1 8.44 8.22 7.67 7.44
0 7 0 7 3 7 7 7 3 0 3 0 0
9.0 8.3 8.0 8.3 8.0 7.3 8.3 7.3 7.3 7.6 7.3 6.3 7.0
S2 8.22 7.89 7.44 6.89
0 3 0 3 0 3 3 3 3 7 3 3 0
9.0 7.6 7.3 8.0 7.6 7.3 8.0 7.3 6.6 7.3 6.3 6.0 6.3
S3 7.67 7.67 7.11 6.22
0 7 3 0 7 3 0 3 7 3 3 0 3
9.0 4.6 4.3 5.3 4.3 4.0 5.0 4.0 3.3 4.3 2.3 2.6 3.3
S4 4.78 4.44 3.89 2.78
0 7 3 3 3 0 0 0 3 3 3 7 3
Mea 9.0 7.3 6.9 7.5 7.0 6.5 7.5 6.5 6.1 6.8 5.8 5.5 6.1
n 0 3 2 8 8 8 0 8 7 3 3 0 7
CD@P=0. CD@P=0. CD@P=0. CD@P=0.
Statistics S. Em± S. Em± S. Em± S. Em±
05 05 05 05
P 0.17 0.49 0.14 0.40 0.15 0.44 0.16 0.47
S 0.19 0.56 0.16 0.46 0.18 0.51 0.18 0.54
P×S 0.33 NS 0.27 NS 0.30 NS 0.32 NS

www.tjprc.org [email protected]
404 K Venkataramudu, B Srinivasulu, K Swarajya Lakshmi, K Subramanyam & P Latha

Table 4: Effect of Different Packing Material and Storage Temperatures on

Flavour of Arils of Pomegranate cv. Ganesh
Flavour of Arils (Organoleptic Score)
Storage Period (Days)
0 4 8 12 16
Mea Mea Mea Mea
P1 P2 P3 P1 P2 P3 P1 P2 P3 P1 P2 P3
n n n n
9.0 8.0 8.0 8.3 8.0 8.0 8.3 7.6 7.3 7.6 7.3 7.0 7.3
S1 8.11 8.11 7.56 7.22
0 0 0 3 0 0 3 7 3 7 3 0 3
9.0 8.0 7.6 8.3 7.6 7.3 8.3 7.3 7.3 7.6 6.6 6.6 7.3
S2 8.00 7.78 7.44 6.89
0 0 7 3 7 3 3 3 3 7 7 7 3
9.0 7.3 7.0 7.6 7.3 7.0 7.3 7.3 7.0 7.3 6.6 6.3 6.6
S3 7.33 7.22 7.22 6.56
0 3 0 7 3 0 3 3 0 3 7 3 7
9.0 5.0 4.0 5.3 4.0 3.3 5.0 3.0 3.0 4.3 3.0 3.0 3.6
S4 4.78 4.11 3.44 3.22
0 0 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 3 0 0 7
Mea 9.0 7.0 6.6 7.4 6.7 6.4 7.2 6.3 6.1 6.7 5.9 5.7 6.2
n 0 8 7 2 5 2 5 3 7 5 2 5 5
CD@P=0. CD@P=0. CD@P=0. CD@P=0.
Statistics S. Em± S. Em± S. Em± S. Em±
05 05 05 05
P 0.12 0.34 0.13 0.37 0.14 0.42 0.14 0.42
S 0.14 0.40 0.15 0.43 0.17 0.49 0.17 0.49
P×S 0.24 NS 0.25 NS 0.29 NS 0.29 NS

Tables 5: Taste of Arils of Pomegranate Cv. Ganesh as Influenced by

Different Packing Material and Storage Temperatures
Taste of Arils (Organoleptic Score)
Storage Period (Days)
0 4 8 12 16
Me Me Me Me
P1 P2 P3 P1 P2 P3 P1 P2 P3 P1 P2 P3
an an an an
9.0 8.6 8.3 9.0 8.3 8.0 8.6 8.0 8.0 8.6 7.6 7.6 8.3
S1 8.67 8.44 8.22 7.89
0 7 3 0 3 0 7 0 0 7 7 7 3
9.0 8.3 7.6 8.6 8.0 7.3 8.3 8.0 7.3 8.0 8.0 7.3 8.0
S2 8.22 8.11 7.78 7.78
0 3 7 7 0 3 3 0 3 0 0 3 0
9.0 8.0 7.6 8.0 7.3 7.0 7.6 7.3 7.0 7.6 7.3 7.0 7.6
S3 7.89 7.67 7.33 7.33
0 0 7 0 3 0 7 3 0 7 3 0 7
9.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00
S4
0 0* 0* 0* * 0* 0* 0* * 0* 0* 0* * 0* 0* 0* *
Me 9.0 6.2 5.9 6.4 6.0 5.8 6.3 5.8 5.5 6.0 5.7 5.5 6.0
an 0 5 2 2 0 3 3 3 8 8 5 0 0
CD@P=0. CD@P=0. CD@P=0. CD@P=0.
Statistics S. Em± S. Em± S. Em± S. Em±
05 05 05 05
P 0.12 0.34 0.13 0.37 0.10 0.28 0.12 0.34
S 0.14 0.40 0.15 0.43 0.11 0.32 0.14 0.40
P×S 0.24 NS 0.25 NS 0.19 NS 0.24 NS

Impact Factor (JCC): 5.9857 NAAS Rating: 4.13

Quality and Shelf Life of Ganesh Pomegranate Arils as Affected by 405
Different Packaging Material and Storage Conditions

Table 6: Effect of Different Packing Material and Storage Temperatures on

Flavour of Arils of Pomegranate Cv. Ganesh
Flavour of Arils (Organoleptic Score)
Storage Period (Days)
0 4 8 12 16
Mea Mea Mea Mea
P1 P2 P3 P1 P2 P3 P1 P2 P3 P1 P2 P3
n n n n
9.0 8.0 8.0 8.3 8.0 8.0 8.3 7.6 7.3 7.6 7.3 7.0 7.3
S1 8.11 8.11 7.56 7.22
0 0 0 3 0 0 3 7 3 7 3 0 3
9.0 8.0 7.6 8.3 7.6 7.3 8.3 7.3 7.3 7.6 6.6 6.6 7.3
S2 8.00 7.78 7.44 6.89
0 0 7 3 7 3 3 3 3 7 7 7 3
9.0 7.3 7.0 7.6 7.3 7.0 7.3 7.3 7.0 7.3 6.6 6.3 6.6
S3 7.33 7.22 7.22 6.56
0 3 0 7 3 0 3 3 0 3 7 3 7
9.0 5.0 4.0 5.3 4.0 3.3 5.0 3.0 3.0 4.3 3.0 3.0 3.6
S4 4.78 4.11 3.44 3.22
0 0 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 3 0 0 7
Mea 9.0 7.0 6.6 7.4 6.7 6.4 7.2 6.3 6.1 6.7 5.9 5.7 6.2
n 0 8 7 2 5 2 5 3 7 5 2 5 5
CD@P=0. CD@P=0. CD@P=0. CD@P=0.
Statistics S. Em± S. Em± S. Em± S. Em±
05 05 05 05
P 0.12 0.34 0.13 0.37 0.14 0.42 0.14 0.42
S 0.14 0.40 0.15 0.43 0.17 0.49 0.17 0.49
P×S 0.24 NS 0.25 NS 0.29 NS 0.29 NS

Table 7: Effect of Different Packing Material and Storage Temperatures on

Overall Acceptability of Arils of Pomegranate Cv.Ganesh
Overall acceptability of arils (organoleptic score)
Storage period (days)
0 4 8 12 16
Mea Mea Mea Mea
P1 P2 P3 P1 P2 P3 P1 P2 P3 P1 P2 P3
n n n n
9.0 8.6 8.0 8.6 7.6 7.3 8.3 7.0 7.0 8.0 6.6 6.3 7.3
S1 8.44 7.78 7.33 6.78
0 7 0 7 7 3 3 0 0 0 7 3 3
9.0 8.3 7.6 8.6 8.0 7.0 8.0 6.6 7.0 7.6 6.6 6.0 7.0
S2 8.22 7.67 7.11 6.56
0 3 7 7 0 0 0 7 0 7 7 0 0
9.0 8.0 7.6 8.0 7.3 6.6 7.3 6.0 6.6 7.3 6.0 6.0 6.0
S3 7.89 7.11 6.67 6.00
0 0 7 0 3 7 3 0 7 3 0 0 0
9.0 4.0 3.0 5.0 3.3 3.0 4.0 3.3 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 4.0
S4 4.00 3.44 3.44 3.33
0 0 0 0 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0
Mea 9.0 7.2 6.5 7.5 6.5 6.0 6.9 5.7 5.9 6.7 5.5 5.3 6.0
n 0 5 8 8 8 0 2 5 2 5 8 3 8
CD@P=0. CD@P=0. CD@P=0. CD@P=0.
Statistics S. Em± S. Em± S. Em± S. Em±
05 05 05 05
P 0.12 0.34 0.13 0.37 0.11 0.31 0.10 0.28
S 0.14 0.40 0.15 0.43 0.12 0.36 0.11 0.32
P×S 0.24 NS 0.25 NS 0.22 NS 0.19 NS

P1 - PESP S1 - 1°C P - Packing material

P2 - PETP S2 - 4°C S - Storage temperature
P3 - PPMM S3 - 8°C P×S - Interaction between packing material
and storage temperature
S4 - Room temperature * - Decayed arils

www.tjprc.org [email protected]